This shit was so predictable lmao at least the victory lap will be less violent than the “stolen election” protests, America now has a more fitting face

Essentially I believe PSL is not the vanguard because leadership and cadre are largely not proletarian. I don’t believe the settler population ought to be twiddling their thumbs, but they need to be led by the proletarian vanguard and PSL is largely led by fellow labor aristocracy and petite bourgeoisie.

I spoke vaguely of orgs because many are localized and focus on their specific communities because they simply do not have mass appeal under settler colonialism. The Black Panthers studied Juche for good reason as they were made up of the community they were trying to liberate. These orgs like Chunka Luta Network are housing and organizing the proletariat, having an active impact in their communities that PSL cannot say the same for.

The “left” in America has problems gaining traction for material reasons. To me it says a lot that this “left” we’re referring to when it comes to PSL is not rooted in the communities its saying they are the vanguard of. I can think of a few orgs that are focused on protecting and aiding sensitive hyper exploited communities that have cut ties with PSL over anti-blackness, misogyny, and anti-indigineity (I am not listing them because of the orgs opsec but for my own, as they are local to me). These orgs and communities don’t need a labor aristocracy to guide them on action, they’re already doing more effective work even among the less theoretically advanced populace due to their material conditions.

There are settlers in these organizations, but they are guided by those with that material interest in liberation. What strikes me as particularly “labor zionist” about PSL is that they say they’re speaking for people that have their own organizations, have their own communities, that they are not a part of and don’t want them involved in. The theoretically objective analysis of material conditions is used to put the leadership above the people and disconnected from the actual struggling masses, of which the leadership should actively be a part of and not simply “speaking for”.

I mean, I’m pretty sure theres a ton of empire challenging parties that are beyond help and arent worth advocating for. Trotskyist parties obviously. A big lesson people have been learning recently in the CPUSA is that trying to change the org from the inside just has not been working. The complete declawing of the anti-zionist DSA proposal shows that the right will assume power whenever something radical comes along. I’d argue both organizations are controlled resistance simply through the futility in engaging in liberalism and settler politics, CIA inflitration or not.

You could say the same thing about the green party as well. Hell, theyre not even self described socialist, following the party as a guide towards anti-imperial work leads you to doing electoralism without any kind of dual power building or smashing tentacles of imperialism beyond toothless protests.

PSL is largely funded by a few people who have a large say in the party, there’s a tendency to burnout, abuse of power, a distinct lack of dual power building, transperancy, and settler cadre and policies to the extent that some native orgs (The Red Nation) see them a lost cause and do not work with them.

Where does that leave us? What’s the point of condemning, to say that these parties aren’t worth engaging in? In my opinion, “Something else” is a good enough answer. Native ML orgs exist that are doing the community organizing, education, and dual power building that really matters. Black defense groups and mutual aid orgs, hell anarchists feeding their communities and engaging in materially anti-imperialist actions are doing more than our American brand of protests or electoralism could ever bring.

Lastly, who are we organizing? Are we radicalizing, connecting, and orchestrating actions among the actual proletariat of America and its imperialist tentacles? (non-citizens, indigenous, racialized hyper-exploited populations) Or are we organizing the white labor aristocracy, petite bourgeoise, or otherwise settler population and arming them with marxist rhetoric and calling them the vanguard of the hyper exploited?

The fact is, this is America. In America, as long as imperialism produces a labor aristocracy, as long as coputulating to whiteness is in the material interest to the vast majority of this population, the revolution is not coming with just organizing, and certainly not in parties or power structures overwhelming controlled by settlers. The material conditions need to be created. The guide to action is cutting the tentacles of imperialism, building dual power to help the hyper exploited before and after the revolution, and bringing our number one export, suffering, home.

If PSL would rather care about the election of all things more than people feeling unsafe in their org, that’s on them. I see the entire effort put towards getting them on the ballot to be fruitless and a waste of cadre time and money, and the wrecker allegations happen no matter what day the SA cases get brought up. Why do so many of you online sound like democrats upset you’re not getting the marxist vote you’re apparently owed, despite the fact there’s literally nothing to gain but a symbolic number go up?

I’m sorry if I sound mad but Marxists should know that this election and this party does not matter as much as having the frank discussion and self-crit on what has happened in the PSL and what good can come from being in the org. What worries me is that not a single response has been “They recognized power abuse in the organization and addressed it and try and prevent it from happening in the future” but instead sweeping it under the rug, handwaving the issue, or saying that these many people were simply lying. If there’s anything the election should be it should be an advertisement for the party and its policies, and the reactions to this post is capitalizing on that to say that even just asking if the party is an unsafe place for women and other vulnerable groups you are a “wrecker”, it’s a bad look for PSL and the Marxism-Leninism they claim to follow.

This is how you get people to see through your party and NOT want to vote for them. Bourgeois democracy is literally not ever that serious, it is a symbolic protest vote and matters so SO much less than SA allegations true or not. Calling someone who wants to make sure they aren’t supporting SA protectors a “wrecker” (again, whether the allegations are true or not and there are certainly true ones) is a misogynist reaction to real concerns that only shows that women are unsafe in the PSL. One more vote for Claudia is not worth that.

To be fair, PSL isn’t a monolith, and the US is filled with misogynists and horrible men in general. Awful that people in power in the org covered it up, even for a single branch it should be all that we’re against. Here’s a mega link with criticisms and accounts of SA

Will note I disagree with a good portion of the public criticisms section as some are Maoist/Trotskyist takes but the first hand accounts here are worth listening to. I think a big problem here is the lack of transperancy and purposefully hindered communication (cadre in branches are told not to each talk to each other except through leadership) and overall too much centralization without the democratic part. Considering the anti-indigenity found in their socialist reconstruction program as well as by other indigenous groups interactions with them (I would suggest reading the Red Nation link in the drive), you could also tie this in with their settler politics as a whole.

I will also note the organization has a history of calling people who disagree with their line or mention the cases of SA as “adventurists” “wreckers” or the like. This is where the danger steps in, PSL is a deeply imperfect org and even the black panthers would and should take SA seriously.

Honestly, does it matter? It simply wouldn’t of occurred without US imperialism, and was used as a pretext for the continuation of the circumstances that caused it. Bush is to blame whether he knew it was gonna happen or not.

Separating exclusionary and assimilationist racists serves no one but the assimilationists that want to feel morally superior – while being just as essential (in fact more so) than their more direct counterpart to the global system of racism and “nations as classes”. There’s some good tips in here too for talking with these people, but this separation confuses praxis and leaves room for thinking certain assimilationist views are at least not as bad as exclusionary ones.

I hardly find myself in the position this article is asking of me because, especially in our current day climate, associating any pro-Israel sentiment with the same kind of social taboo as exclusionary racism and giving a more “What the fuck bro” approach to the topic is easier and in my experience genuinely more effective. They may not think they’re “dyed-in-the-wool racists” but they are and they need to know it.

https://youtu.be/6dHhFfJEZ9g https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Can-the-Chinese-Revolution-Be-Called-a-Proletarian-Revolution-—-Enver-Hoxha.pdf

Cringe imo, so at some point earlier in the parties history the CPC didn’t think the Soviet model could be 1:1 implanted into China and Mao instead spoke about creating a “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” the phrase that’s been carried into today. He seems to find this to be revisionist and things like the influence of Confucius and Chinese philosophy to be bourgeoise… the weirdest part about this though is that he basically says “They should’ve appealed to the peasantry” “shouldn’t of appealed so much to big landowners” “mao calling it a peasant revolution means they aren’t marxist” “it was a national revolution not a social revolution” “new democracy is bourgeoise liberalism” “mao’s a liberal democrat that pretends to be marxist” “mao zedong thought is anti-marxist” and I’m still not sure why except for his briefly stated view on new democracy. Mostly non-investigative nonsense that necessitates millions of people to learn Marxism but get nothing from it other than justifying liberalism and wanting to take over Siberia(?)

I’ve seen self described Maoists just be pro-Khmer Rouge and you could tie this with the fetishization of violence in the movement because it’s often not a critical support either that takes into account their awful situation but just saying the genocide was deserved and shit (often playing into anti-communist exaggerations of the already horrible events too). Western Maoists are a different breed tho than the CPI (Maoist) so I’m not sure about the latter’s thoughts on the matter or any of the other third world Maoist parties.

Some Hoxhaist anti-revisionists that don’t take the whole Maoist line also cite Hoxha’s “Can the Chinese revolution be considered a proletariat revolution?” to discount the project as communist/marxist and paint it as revisionist from the beginning, laying this to blame for their tactical moves with the US

Leninists were, at a time, what trotskyists called themselves in opposition to “Stalinists”, where as Stalin outlined the philosophy of “Marxism-Leninism” so it’s defined in that old polemic I believe. Don’t hear Leninism too often anymore though. I think Marxism is emphasized mostly because of how he able to outline dialectical materialism as opposed to his other socialist/communist contemporaries, and even if we say Marx was more incorrect than those who came after him he’s still foundational or at least inspirational to a lot of the work that came after him. Mao built on Lenin’s theories in incredibly important ways as well but calling myself a Maoist has different connotations like Leninist might have, and ppl generally accept MZT as part of ML so it’s been an effective way of communicating the contemporary communist position (siding with Stalin over Trotsky, Sino over Soviet, MZT over Maoism).

Considering the many great communists that have existed, even those who never took inspiration from Marx, or who saw his work as accurate and useful but not central to their communist thought (Frantz Fanon comes to mind, never feeling a need to call himself a Marxist) I generally prefer a simple “communist” as it gives a bit less eurocentrism and doesn’t pay special attention to anyone in a movement that belongs to the masses. However, “Marxism” as a name for the eternal science of dialectical materialism and it’s application is very effective as a means of communicating this school of thought and valuable contribution he made in outlining it, where as terms like “Leninism” “Maoist” “Hoxhaist” “Marxism-Leninism” “Dengist” often refer to a specific polemic outlined by an influencial figure in the overall movement as opposed to the quality of the named people’s contributions to this science or its application.

https://x.com/evoespueblo/status/1828571263297556789

https://x.com/evoespueblo/status/1837445598640816335

In the first one here Morales talks about how he was threatening the nationalization of their hydrocarbons industry and the second is a list of things he’s failed to do or is actively dismantling in terms of progress, a theme seems to be inaction in terms of returning to pre-coup progress or even overturning the far-right policies put in place in 2019 as economic stability gets worse and worse (another example not mentioned here is that Anez restored diplomatic relations with Israel and Acre never reversed this, which Morales has advocated for him to do)

I will note that this is the extent of my knowledge, I’m sure there have been updates since as well and possible counter evidence I am unaware of, but taking Morales at his word this shits pretty crazy

Consider some of the rightist policies and anti-indigeneity going on with the ruling candidate rn (as well as his decision to make Evo unable to take place in elections) it moreso seems like a situation where the Evo protests are the only way they can get their voice out, idk if talking it out is an option and I doubt they haven’t tried

It seems to me like a situation of indigenous socialism vs. south american CIA or simply settler “socialism”, although if someone else knows more about Bolivia feel free to correct me on this.

You couldn’t possibly be weird for such a thing, there’s no “normal” to begin with aside from the exploitative and patriarchal relationships encouraged by capital. Feel yourself, enjoy yourself, don’t worry about labels and being a “real asexual”, whatever that means. You valid! These labels are here to find community with people with similar experiences and often include a wide variety of ppl with seperate interpretations of what it means to be asexual, trans, queer or otherwise, sometimes in contradiction with each other. But they’re just words to describe ourselves, when the only truth is the experiences you’ve had that have led you to describe yourself as such and the usefulness you find within.

We all wish we were as based as the Chinese, alas 😔. One more rec for the road for a perspective on Canada, Prison of Grass: Canada from the Native Point of View. Okay I’m done lol best of luck! Hope you enjoy and are able to spread this consciousness around as if you were karl ilyich zedong himself 🫡

Bring the colonial question back in full force in all fields, namely studies into neocolonialism and the settler colonialist nature of the US, the inseparability of colonialism and capitalism, and most importantly bringing unrepresented groups like Kazakhs into the high soviets which were overwhelming Russian at the time. No toleration approach for Russian chauvinism. Going for a “reeducation by the peasants” approach for many of the detached and comfortable leadership. Teach less to the liberation movements springing up, and learn more from them.

Do opposite glasnost, strengthen the party’s rule and policing of the second economy + incentives to not participate in it (bolstering the first economy). Bringing back Stalin iconography and what he represents while still allowing for the critical re-evaluation of his past, but emphasizing his great fight against fascism and how it’s still left to be finished. Setting up functional systemic processes for weeding out corruption and heavy emphasis on revolutionary education for the masses, reexamining all curriculum. Don’t back out of Afghanistan. Beg on my hands and knees for forgiveness by the CPC and ways to cooperate. Nuke Israel.

Basically he believes China is revisionist and capitalist, and the failures of socialism thus far have been through revisionism (the failure to adhere to core marxist principles). He also doesn’t cover many liberation movements that don’t fully fit the communist/marxist ideal he supports.

IMO this view obfuscates some of the more material sources for why movements fail, most notably in his viewing the failure of the CPUSA not through its history of settler communism/labor zionism but its failure to adhere to marxist tenets leading up to the open revisionism of CPUSA’s Eric Browder, without seeing why his revisionism was so accepted and popular. This leaves praxis to adhering to a closer marxist orthodoxy that’s quite dogmatist instead of using the dialectical materialist analysis to see that the material basis for a revolution in the USA would be the superexploited native and black peoples that aren’t represented in the CPUSA or even most other communist groups.

I remember him receiving a question on a stream once about covering the black panthers and he said he preferred not to because he didn’t like the kind of work they did or something to that effect, so he’s kinda got a big blindspot there and I would suggest you try and find some audiobooks of Gerald Horne and Frantz Fanon’s works, would also suggest Assata’s autobiography, Revolutionary Suicide, Kwame Ture’s Black Power, Red Nation Rising just to name a few. Also educating yourself on China through a seperate source I’d recommends Roland Boer’s “Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners” if you can find an audiobook “The East is Still Red” is also good, or even just reading the works of Deng/Xi Jinping for yourself, unfortunately a lot of the history and study here is in Chinese lol but I’d avoid S4A’s content on the topic personally.

Socialism 4 All does audiobooks on youtube https://youtube.com/@socialismforall I download these and listen to them in the car pretty often, including Capital

I guess my main point is a western made video that seems to think china abandoned 5 year plans and believes conspiracies like Xi actually has a ton of secret financial assets, as well as not properly historically contextualizing the reform and opening up but opting for the ideological purism that Roland describes that westerners tend to have re:china I don’t think the video offers much expert insight beyond peddling some myths and “viewing china with western eyes” as he says. Deng def made rightist mistakes and hurt class struggle on the global front (Vietnam and such) but the reform and opening up era was certainly a good move for China and kept them on the road to socialism, a step made necessary by their “chinese characteristics” and not really comparable to Khrushchev’s declaration of the end of class struggle

I really suggest "Socialism With Chinese Characteristics a Guide for Foreigners " on this, the author was the first non-chinese employee at the school for marxism and knows Chinese and has read marx and lenin in their original languages and has a wide knowledge of Chinese socialism. Goes over a lot of the myths this guy seems to be falling for, namely the idea that Deng abandoned class struggle and purposefully took the capitalist road, ruining the project forever. Paired with its historical materialist analysis of China and deep knowledge of party history it offers so much more than any westerner that’s never been to China could offer. I have yet to learn the opinion of maoists in the third world (something that I’d like to learn a lot more about ) but this video was pretty ahistorical and western brained tbh